He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
Can you?
... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
No, not 'due to the LT.'.
Its due to the fact that they do
Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
Can you?
Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
No, not 'due to the LT.'.
Its due to the fact that they do; its the way our universe operates.
The LT's simply model this behavior. The LT's don't dictate. You are so confused.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.
You are a reality denier now?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock."In order for the theory to survive long enough for this to happen, its dependencies
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock."A theory supplied without conventional physical postulates can be
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.<snip>
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Much simpler than that.
Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.
That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.
Cretinism = relativism
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:06:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.<snip>
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Much simpler than that.
Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.
That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.
Cretinism = relativismThe twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:25:41 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:06:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.<snip>
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Much simpler than that.
Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.
That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.
What I wrote is elementary logic BEFORE Lorentz transforms are "derived". Pure logic, because when a rod of length L = BACretinism = relativismThe twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?
pass by the origin x = 0, clock located at B (rod moving to the right side) is reset by a light signal.
IF the same procedure is applied to the clock located at the A rear end, then automatically B clock is out of sync.
1) End B passes by origin x = 0. Clock tB = clock t = 0.
2) End A passes by the origin x = 0. Clock tA = clock t = 0, BUT clock tB is running L/v seconds ahead of tA = t = 0.
This problem has no solution, unless A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM sets clock A = L/v, which is EXACTLY the time t. So NO RESET!
Lorentz transforms:
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Now, reading the paper you mentioned, it's obvious what happens. He replaced
x = x'/γ + vt in t', what gives time in the moving frame related to position in the moving frame:
t' = γ (t - x'v/(γc²) - vt v/c²) = γ (t - t v²/c² - x'v/(γc²) ) = γ (t/γ² - x'v/(γc²) = (t/γ) - x'v/c²
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
If, once using Lorentz, Einstein tries to sync t' when t = 0, HE CAN'T because for t = 0, t' = - x′v/c²
Being t' = - x′v/c² WHEN t = 0 only has ONE SOLUTION: Using only ONE CLOCK at x' = 0. Then he could synchronize ONE moving
clock located at the rear end of the rod BA (or just the clock A).
That's ONE OF MANY deceiving manipulations of the 1905 paper. It's WRONGFUL, it's called CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING, etc.
But cretinism = relativism has prevailed on this evil, rotten world.
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:54:18 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:See above first posted comment:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
nor did you quote him on it.
Google kept a record of your lies.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
<snip>
Much simpler than that.
Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.
That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.
Cretinism = relativism
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,See above first posted comment:
nor did you quote him on it.
Google kept a record of your lies.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
Can you?
Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:Then you know better than Einstein or did he make a dumb remark forbidding multiple cocks?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Nonsense.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame? We could just use one clock in each frame. Was he mistaken or did he have a good reason?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Sylvia.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Dumbotron
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I already told you he quotes Einstein.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,See above first posted comment:
nor did you quote him on it.
Google kept a record of your lies.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
Do you know what to quote someone means?
Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:Then you know better than Einstein or did he make a dumb remark forbidding multiple clocks?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Nonsense.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You are disagreeing with Einstein. Are you more intelligent than him?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.A frame has its own time. There can be other frame clocks around it to compare.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
rotchm wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.if i'm running
Can you?
trying to catch
the next train..
and I look
at my clock/watch
"Time is what a clock reads".
How can I tell if I'm late if I have more than one clock????
Your body is your frame of reference.
You can only have one clock.
It doesn't work with two clocks or more clocks.
You are Spam rotchm because your post message is irrelvant.
You're irrelvant! I incite others to report your spam.Do you think Engehardt was right to be suspicious of these word of Einstein's? "
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I give the quote below in reply to Starmaker.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,See above first posted comment:
nor did you quote him on it.
Google kept a record of your lies.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
Do you know what to quote someone means?
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:Dumbotron,
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Dumbotron
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Einstein was not a genius.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
DumbotronSylvia.Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Sylvia.Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
DumbotronSylvia.Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:Your paper says, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" Yet there is nothing surprising about the fact the results are self-contradictory reductio ad absurdum.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Nonsense.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:By saying, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" you admit Dingle's criticism is correct.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Nonsense.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:The only dumbotrons here are you, Dick, Engelhard and Crotches. Crotches used to post in this forum , after the savage beatings he got here, he withdrew in the safety of the npa-relativity forum.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
DumbotronSylvia.Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:58:02 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:As usual. you are unable to give substantive reasons for your vacuous views. Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism." - Leus, relativist.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock. What was he hiding?That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
DumbotronSylvia.Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
The only dumbotrons here are you, Dick, Engelhard and Crotches. Crotches used to post in this forum , after the savage beatings he got here, he withdrew in the safety of the npa-relativity forum.There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:15:22 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,See above first posted comment:
nor did you quote him on it.
Google kept a record of your lies.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.
Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
Do you know what to quote someone means?
I already told you he quotes Einstein.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Neither of you have answered his reply.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:Dumbotron,
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory ofDumbotron
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
Leus already demolished Crotches
Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."
On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Neither of you have answered his reply.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:Dumbotron,
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory ofDumbotron
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
Leus already demolished Crotches
refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Neither of you have answered his reply.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:Dumbotron,
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory ofDumbotron
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
Leus already demolished Crotches
refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311218110_Einstein's_third_postulate
I already told you he quotes Einstein.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:58:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly) refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Neither of you have answered his reply.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: >>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron,
Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory ofDumbotron
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
Leus already demolished Crotches
Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘Onparalell universes are ...Postulates.
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:You said, "This is what is meant by mutual time dilation." This is a reductio ad absurdum disproving time dilation. You deny this saying, "Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2 because the temporal interval between different sets of events are
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Nonsense.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers: "Thus, for every t > 0 of the “stationary system K” there exists a point ξ ≠ 0 in the “moving system k” where τ = 0 .
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:You are a lazy fool.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Neither of you have answered his reply.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:Dumbotron,
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory ofDumbotron
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
Leus already demolished Crotches
refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?
Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:58:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:In the presently discussed matter of the number of clocks allowable in the moving frame he over-estimated Einstein.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly) refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Neither of you have answered his reply.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: >>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron,
Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory ofDumbotron
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
Leus already demolished Crotches
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same. Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronizationI have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
(t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by "inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by "inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same. Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchroni- zation method doesn't work with the Lt.
Einstein himself tacitly admitted this in the quote where he says the moving frame could not have more than one clock.
I admit I don't yet have a grasp of their argument.
I am surprised that the defenders of relativity have not already contended with it.
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronizationI have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
(t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by "inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."
I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!
No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:54:11 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."
I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!
No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?Only in your fantasy world. The "scientists" you think are excellent are mostly not physicists at all and none have shown Einstein to be wrong. Not one.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change. >>>>
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Einstein's time synchronization
Einstein's synchronization
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:Dumbotron
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change. >>> >
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync in the same inertial frame:
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).
greetings...and in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies", where ge explains the clock synchronization method (the one that Engelhardt keeps bungling), there are two clocks, one at the A end of the rod and one at the B end of the rod. (nothing changes if
Adi
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).
greetingsNo, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
Adi
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).
greetings
Adi
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:Dumbotron
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).
you are an idiotgreetingsNo, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
Adi
No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>> continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
:-D
So you can't give the quote by Einstein?
--Those who refuse to look through the telescope are history. If you are such a child, you don't know how to make a request. Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
in the same inertial frame:
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:51:32 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²Note #1: This resolves to t = γ(t' + vx'/c²).
Note #2: You can also derive x = γ(x' + vt')
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows
that those clocks are out of sync in the same inertial frame:
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
Yes, from the perspective of the "stationary" frame, the other frames' clocks are out of sync within their frame. How can this be in an IRF in real physics? It can't. That disproves SR. There is no relativity of simultaneity. In any case, it reduces, atAll the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (asExactly, as PERCEIVED by the observer who remains at x = 0. IOW, from the perspective of S, not S'. This just proves the relativity of simultaneity from the
perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
perspective of S.
Now use Note #1 to prove that clocks stationary in S are out of sync from the
perspective of S'. This proves the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective
of S'.
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:On p. 515: "he wrote: “Certainly the same
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:Maybe you should reread p. 514? Or can`t you read?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:Dumbotron
On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock. >>>>> > > What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).
greetings
Adi
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:23:59 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Why would I kick a mule for kicking me?
No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.You *still* havent quoted Einstein.
Many of us here have been waiting for you to support your claim, but you fail to do so.
It's obvious by now that you are a liar and a crank.
Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:"The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
I assume the claim is:On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
in both their respective frames.
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²No, t' = f(t,x') gives:
t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)
Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².
But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of syncYour conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
in the same inertial frame:Don't be ridiculous!
Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).
t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
are different in K' and K.
That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)
The LT:
xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0Nonsense.
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
The coordinates of event N are:
in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m
Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000
This shouldn't surprise you.
When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
always show the same. t'= t, remember?
But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
1E17 times too high! :-D
HOWEVER;
If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m
So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
simultaneous in K', show different values.
The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.
When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
show the same.
This:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.
If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Le 01/10/2023 à 04:38, Tom Roberts a écrit :""We didn't leave the hostel." French proverb."- Babylon
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Einstein's time synchronization
Einstein's synchronization
Tom Roberts
"On n'est pas sorti de l'auberge".
Proverbe français.
R.H.
Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
I assume the claim is:On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
in both their respective frames.
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²No, t' = f(t,x') gives:
t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)
Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².
But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of syncYour conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
in the same inertial frame:Don't be ridiculous!
Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).
t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
are different in K' and K.
That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)
The LT:
xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0Nonsense.
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
The coordinates of event N are:
in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m
Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000
This shouldn't surprise you.
When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
always show the same. t'= t, remember?
But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
1E17 times too high! :-D
HOWEVER;
If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m
So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
simultaneous in K', show different values.
The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.
When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
show the same.
This:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.
If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The relativists are the cranks, and all of you are dumber than Einstein. "crank2
grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the LtThere is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.Anyone interested in getting at the elementary basis may like Crother's earlier article specifically on this issue: Einstein's anomalous clock synchronization
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.It is hard for anything to be more self-contradictory nonsense than to have different times at the same time in a single IRF, as relativity does by the concession of several relativists' comments above. Reductio ad absurdum. Relativity is nonsense.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
I assume the claim is:
According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
in both their respective frames.
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The relativists are the cranks
grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the LtThere is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.
A reminder...Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
“I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The relativists are the cranks
grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the LtThere is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....Ad populum dummy!
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The relativists are the cranks
grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the LtThere is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....lemming!
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The relativists are the cranks
grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the LtThere is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"...."The many are ignorant, the few are wise." - Socrates
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.
If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
"The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock."According to Special Relativity, the ‘spacetime interval’ is invariant for all coordinate
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other! That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.
If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
"The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,Nobody has denied that. What you have failed to realize is that an
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.
observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but
they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem to believe that since simultaneous
events in K aren't simultaneous in K', relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.
Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein?
Englehardt gives that citation,...
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:45:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Lazy mule!
Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein?Well, yes, DuH! That is what to quote means!
Englehardt gives that citation,...
Irrelevant, since he may be making stuff up.
So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc.
That is what to quote means, DuH!
So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc.Lazy mule!
That is what to quote means, DuH!
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronizationI have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
(t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
what is meant by "inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
same.
The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method
doesn't work with the Lt.
Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in
K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence
of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K', relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.
Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:his article is easily available.
Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.Sylvia.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>>> That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>>> relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>>> continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change. >>>>>>
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
:-D
So you can't give the quote by Einstein?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Those who refuse to look through the telescope are history. If you are such a child, you don't know how to make a request. Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A reminder...Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
“I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."
Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.
On 9/30/23 10:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Since you admit the clocks in the moving reference frame read different times at one instant viewed from the other IRF, you admit the inconsistency showing relativity is absurd nonsense. Then your math does the same or you have contradicted yourself.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same.
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronizationI have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
(t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
what is meant by "inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
... when read simultaneously in their rest frame. Without that condition your statement makes no sense.
The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt.
There is nothing to "grapple" with -- such a claim is manifestly incorrect.
As you seem to have trouble with basic logic, let me point out that my paragraph above outlines a proof that Englehardt's and Crothers's claims
are incorrect, by showing that Einstein synchronization is compatible
with the Lorentz transform. The proof is easily completed by anyone
familiar with SR and basic algebra (which apparently excludes you and
other cranks around here).
Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]
You are wrong, apparently because YOU CANNOT READ. Einstein did not say
what you claim.
Tom Roberts
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.Whoever accepts relativity doesn't understand it. Everyone who understands it rejects it.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
On 9/30/23 10:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:The fact that the clocks in the moving reference frame are not synchronized when viewed from the other reference frame proves the synchronization method contradicts the LT.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
wrote:
On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same.
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronizationI have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).
But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
(t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
what is meant by "inertial frame".
So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.
Tom Roberts
... when read simultaneously in their rest frame. Without that condition your statement makes no sense.
The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt.
There is nothing to "grapple" with -- such a claim is manifestly incorrect.
As you seem to have trouble with basic logic, let me point out that my paragraph above outlines a proof that Englehardt's and Crothers's claims
are incorrect, by showing that Einstein synchronization is compatible
with the Lorentz transform. The proof is easily completed by anyone
familiar with SR and basic algebra (which apparently excludes you and
other cranks around here).
Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]
You are wrong, apparently because YOU CANNOT READ. Einstein did not say
what you claim.
Tom Roberts
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:chest pounding
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem
to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K',
relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.
Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!No need to argue ad hominem.
That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real
physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in
the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for
the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.
RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments confirming time dilation, here's an example:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true
Here's another:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
exists in spite of your denial.
Whoever accepts relativity doesn't understand it. Everyone who understands it rejects it.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is drivingagainst the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".
That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:34:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
A reminder...Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
“I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."
Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.
And yet you still have zero evidence in support of your wacky theories. ZERO! Relativity still rules until it is proven to be incorrect,
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
I assume the claim is:On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
in both their respective frames.
No, t' = f(t,x') gives:
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)
Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².
But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²
Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
in the same inertial frame:Don't be ridiculous!
Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).
t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
are different in K' and K.
That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,
You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18
The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)
The LT:
xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m >>
tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s
Nonsense.
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
The coordinates of event N are:
in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m
Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000
This shouldn't surprise you.
When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
always show the same. t'= t, remember?
But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
1E17 times too high! :-D
HOWEVER;
If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m
So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?
Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
simultaneous in K', show different values.
The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.
When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
show the same.
This:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.
If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
"The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.
Den 01.10.2023 22:46, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
I assume the claim is:On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
in both their respective frames.
No, t' = f(t,x') gives:
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)
Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².
But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²
Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
in the same inertial frame:Don't be ridiculous!
Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).
t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
are different in K' and K.
That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,
You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18
The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)
The LT:
xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s
Nonsense.
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
The coordinates of event N are:
in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m
Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000
This shouldn't surprise you.
When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
always show the same. t'= t, remember?
But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
1E17 times too high! :-D
HOWEVER;
If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m >>
So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?
Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
simultaneous in K', show different values.
The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.
When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
show the same.
This:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf
PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.
If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
in the reference above.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
"The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.
Concede? :-D
The relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
consequence of the postulates of SR.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can
set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem
to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K',
relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.
Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real
physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!
No need to argue ad hominem.
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for
the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.
RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments confirming time dilation, here's an example:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true
Here's another:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
exists in spite of your denial.
chest pounding
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:17:53 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
No, t' = f(t,x') gives:
t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)
I quit reading after your stupid claim of a mistake of mine.
x' = γ (x - vt)
t' = γ (t - xv/c²)
Replacing x by x' in t' gives
t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly
shows that those clocks are out of sync
in the same inertial frame:
Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
....
t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame,
are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
:-D
So you can't give the quote by Einstein?
Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:31:22 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can
set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in
K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence
of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem
to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K',
relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.
Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real
physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!
No need to argue ad hominem.
"Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin
Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.
RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments confirming time dilation, here's an example:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true
Here's another:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale
You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
exists in spite of your denial.
chest poundingSo presenting actual experimental evidence is "chest pounding" :-)
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:57:53 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:On p. 515: "he wrote: “Certainly the same
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:Maybe you should reread p. 514? Or can`t you read?
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:
Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Dumbotron
Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock. >>>>>>> > > What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.
Sylvia.
There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
“For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).
greetings
Adi
result [for time dilation] could be found if the clock moved
relative to an observer at rest in the upper c.s.; in this case
there would have to be many clocks in the upper c.s. and
only one in the lower.”" You only prove Einstein contradicted himself. That is just what we are saying. The method of synchronization contradicts the LT.
Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
:-D
So you can't give the quote by Einstein?
Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.
I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
which you confirmed.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?
Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
:-D
So you can't give the quote by Einstein?
Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.
I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
which you confirmed.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the
On 10/2/2023 11:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
:-D
So you can't give the quote by Einstein?
Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.
I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
which you confirmed.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the
I see you *still* are unable to provide the Einstein quote.
This behavior by Laurence makes me think there's some secret
crackpot-only anti-relativity discussion board somewhere that Laurence follows. Someone on the board bragged that Englehardt quotes Einstein stating whatever, but without providing the quote itself. Laurence
treats that as Gospel and repeats it here as factual, but he isn't smart enough to find the Einstein quote (assuming it actually exists) himself.
So Laurence just hems and haws hoping people will just believe him or he somehow gets the quote.
Meanwhile, on the secret discussion board, there's likely a post by
Laurence reading "PLEASE can someone provide me with the Einstein quote
that Englehardt refers to!!!"
[]
You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
but they are NOT simultaneous in K'."
Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the sameinstant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?
On 10/3/2023 1:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[]
Are you a member of the secret crackpot anti-relativity discussion
board?
Is Laurence begging for the Einstein quote because he's too dumb
to find it himself?
If we assume that there are clocks showing coordinate time
at x = γN m in K, and at x' = N m, then:
SR is thoroughly tested in innumerable experiments
and never falsified.
All rational scientists know that simultaneity is relative.
You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
... At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed ...
On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:19:11 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
... At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed ...
Why to you say that it is absurd?
Is it because of your own prejudice?
Because of your own miscomprehension?
Because you are a reality denier?
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.My conclusion is that Englehardt's and Crother's criticism is not a steel man of relativity.
What was he hiding?
If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
Einstein’s third postulate
W. Engelhardt
On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity
Stephen John Crothers
Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
Relativity”
Vladimir A. Leus
Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
of Relativity’”
Stephen J. Crothers
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 307 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 82:01:18 |
Calls: | 6,917 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 12,382 |
Messages: | 5,433,166 |